• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Beata on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Seagrl on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Seagrl on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Propertius on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Propertius on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Propertius on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    William on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    jmac on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    William on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Beata on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Beata on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Beata on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    William on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Seagrl on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Beata on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    May 2012
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.
  • Top Posts

Friday, Friday

Before I head on down to the basement to do more painting, and more painting today on the hallways (gosh, I’m beginning to sound like Lambert and his endless painting chores), I’d just like to clear something up about Obama’s sudden revelation about marriage equality.

He came out for marriage equality.  Good.

He also said it should be left to the states.  Bad.

He said it should be left to the states *after* it had been defeated, stomped on, drawn, quartered, burned and left on a pole at the state house in Raleigh, North Carolina.  So, he took no risks by saying he was for it.  In fact, one might interpret his timing as a tacit approval of the actions of the conservative voters of North Carolina.  {{wink, wink, say no more, know what I mean, gov’nah?}} This way, he risks nothing.

So, why bother? It’s because he LGBT community was pissed at him for not preventing discrimination in government contracts, which, in my humble opinion is just as important.  From Greg Sargent’s post on the subject a few days ago:

Some leading gay and progressive donors are so angry over President Obama’s refusal to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors that they are refusing to give any more money to the pro-Obama super PAC, a top gay fundraiser’s office tells me. In some cases, I’m told, big donations are being withheld.

Jonathan Lewis, the gay philanthropist and leading Democratic fundraiser, is one of many gay advocates who has been working behind the scenes to pressure Obama to change his mind. When Obama decided against the executive order last month, arguing that he would pursue a legislative solution instead, advocates were furious — such a solution will never pass Congress, the executive order has been a priority for advocates for years, and the move smacked of a political cave to conservatives who will not support Obama no matter what he does.

I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no excuse for him not to sign this executive order that has been hanging around for years.  In the four years that he’s been in office, he could have pursued a legislative solution but he hasn’t.  So, why not just sign the order?  Isn’t discrimination a bad thing, especially when it comes to government contracts?  Presumably, we want the best contractors to do the work for our country and some of them might be gay.  How can it ever be right to not hire or fire a person who is doing good work for you simply on the basis of sexual orientation?  I find it inexcusable, like keeping the Bush Conscience Clause on the books until three years after his inauguration.  Three fricking years.  And he only rescinded it in the midst of that stupid battle with the red beanie boys over birth control.  That conscience clause was severely impinging on women’s access to reproductive health measures and he only partially rescinded it.  Why did it take him three years to rescind a hated clause that his predecessor put in to please the religious right?

THREE YEARS.  Unbelievable. Ms. Magazine’s superfeminist shouldn’t have waited past the inaugural balls to rescind that wretched thing.  But Obama?  Where was the rush?  The immediacy?  Where indeed.

So, Obama was looking at a shortfall in campaign contributions.  To get back in the LGBT community’s good graces, he came out for marriage equality knowing very well that his endorsement was coupled with the idea that states could do anything they damn well please.  This cost him nothing politically.  The social conservatives who weren’t going to vote for him before aren’t going to vote for him now.  The social conservatives who like him but don’t like marriage equality know they can vote against it and Obama doesn’t care.

The only people who were hoodwinked and bamboozled by this are Obama fans.

Yes, it’s a victory for the LGBT community.  They’ve eeked support out of a sitting president. It’s too bad it came so late in his first term, has no teeth, doesn’t precipitate a move of the 2012 Democratic National Convention from North Carolina to some other state, like Vermont, and was *clearly* driven by the need to fundraise.  No, no, don’t even try to convince me that he feels passionately about this.  I’m guessing that he doesn’t really feel passion about anything that doesn’t affect him directly.  I mean, supposedly, he’s a pro-choice president but I doubt you’ll ever hear him say that women have the right to make their own decisions about abortion without the interference of half a dozen family members and social institutions.

He’s not a nice guy.  He’s not a great president.  He’s just an overconfident underperforming politician whose big money guys are stingy this year.  This is about Obama, not Hillary.  You can say all you want about Hillary.  She’s an adult and can take care of herself.  But please, give up trying to convince me that this man is God’s gift to the country and for god’s sakes, stop making excuses for his impotency.  We are really tired of excuses.  Maybe you guys are too chickenshit to ask him to step down for the good of the country but stop trying to convince, intimidate or whine to us about why we must choose him this fall.  We own our votes and we’ll give them to people who act like they actually believe in something.

Ok, looks like I’m done harshing your mellow.  Must go paint…


Wait, I’m not done yet after all.  A couple of days ago, James Carville told Democrats to STFU about how they’ve got the election in the bag this fall because they could easily lose.  Yes, there is a surplus of unearned overconfidence about trouncing Romney.  I’m going third party this year but I understand where Carville is coming from.  No matter what you say about Romney and his youthful indiscretions with hair clippers, he ran for office in Massachusetts and won.  As far as states go, it doesn’t get bluer than that.  And he’s already tied with Obama in latest polls well inside the margin of error.

As Carville says, voters will go with the person they think cares about them.  It doesn’t matter how many terrorists you slay, if your constituents have suffered through job losses, foreclosures and loss of health insurance, and there is still no end in sight, they will hold you personally responsible.  Obama’s campaign and other Democrats ignore this at their peril.

They also seem to be ignoring the effects of outsourcing our scientific infrastructure and the loss of high paying, middle class, suburban jobs who were once held by people who do not need additional education to fit in to the present job market.  Democrats are still in la-la land if they think we don’t notice how we’ve been abandoned by their party.  We will not forget who stood by and did nothing.

15 Responses

  1. Mellow? I haven’t had a mellow to harsh for as long as I can remember.

    • Whoa, that was weird. I made a reply to someone elses comment on Huffpo and it created a post here. I’m not sure I like that, especially because I just reversed the word order in the previous commenter’s comment. It was just a throwaway line, not a whole post.
      Huffpo commenting rules are very strange. I’m staying away from now on. That was my first comment there ever and now, my last.

  2. RD, this is more directed to the post below than to this one. As you know, I don’t share your belief in Hillary Clinton — at least, not anymore. Imagine a Secretary of State who performed EXACTLY as she has — except this one has a penis and a different last name. Would you be impressed by that person’s record?

    I, for one, am sick of all the war and outsourcing. Yes, we can blame Obama for much of that. But like it or not, “Obama’s Foreign Policy” is a big, ugly painting with her name in the lower right-hand corner. She should never have worked for this administration. My heart sank when she took the job.

    All of that said…I’m curious to learn your response to the revelation that Bill Clinton urged Hillary to quit and to run against Obama in 2012.


    Apparently, Bill called Barack “an amateur.” A wise assessment, if he really did say that.

    • Oh wow! I need to read that.

      Anyway, I disagree with you about her performance as SOS. The wars were started and complicated by the Bushies specifically because they would be hard to get out of them. If she had been president, I think it would have taken her awhile to extricate us but she’d probably be finished by now. But she’s not president. Obama is. It’s his responsibility to end the wars. Hers is diplomacy. I think she’s done really well. She’s got North Korea back on track, she’s been a strong advocate for the Arab spring, she’s organizing humanitarian aid for Syria, people around the world respect her. No one is complaining about her *except* the Obots who love to keep harping on her supposed “hawkishness”. According to them, we were supposed to be over our head in war with Iran by now. Hasn’t happened. I never thought it would. There are a lot of good reasons not to go to war with Iran and Iran knows them.
      Yes, war is bad. Yes, I want Iraq and Afghanistan to be over already. but that doesn’t mean we can shirk our responsibilities when it comes to treaties or that in certain cases, it is not a good thing to put the thumb on the scales with air power. As long as we don’t commit to more troops on the ground, I’m ok with that.

      Be careful about the roles we assign here. The secretary of state’s job is diplomacy. It is not defense and it’s not national security, although she has a role to play in both. The guy who calls the shots is Obama.

      • OK, I’m reading it and the conversation that supposedly took place sounds like a script from the Lifetime network movie of the week dramatization. Who writes this stuff? Frankly, if Bill and Hill had this conversation, I doubt that there was anyone around besides them, unless the house is bugged. Bill Clinton’s speech is a lot more subtle and nuanced than this.
        It’s just silly, even if it makes sense from a strategic point of view.

    • BTW, consider the source of that article. It might have a nugget of truth but it’s designed to tweak people and stir up trouble. Not that I have any problems with the idea and if it’s true, it’s because Bill knows she can win it. But putting it out there seems like a stunt that the Republicans would play to make sure the Democrats slit their own throats denying it and cutting off any road for Hillary to do it.
      Conservatives are really good at reading the tea leaves, much better than Democrats are. They know the Democratic base better than Democratic party leaders. They definitely know their enemy and how to play them.

      • Yeah, Klein is so bad that even other righties mistrust him.

        The problem with concoctions of this sort is that the authors never have any taste for subtlety.

      • I doubt the prez race actually means anything. The 1% have already decided whether Obummer or Richie Retch will get the nod this time, and they have the Corporate Media to make sure the votes go as the 1% wishes. If the CM somehow fails, the 1% also have the unaccountable, hackable, computerized voting machines to fall back on.

        The 1% just don’t quite think they can come out with naked authoritarian dictatorship yet–or they remember that the strategy of supporting a wannabe dictator turned out badly for their German counterparts in the 1930s–so the 1% still want to go through the motions of democracy.


        • I think “who is Prez” would still make a difference. Here is the difference I think it would make. If Obama gets re-elected, he and the so-called “Democrats” will co-conspire with the Republicans to legislate the Simpson-Bowles Catfood Plan against Social Security and Medicare. Whereas if Romney is elected, the so-called “Democrats” will pretend to oppose Simpson-Bowles in order to save the tattered remnants of their Party brand. If Social Security/Medicare is the issue, Obama would be the worse President because he would be The More Effective Evil.

          It brings to mind what Malcolm X used to say about trusting his Openly Avowed Enemies above his hypocritical snake-in-the-grass enemies in Liberal Friend disguise. Romney is a more trustworthy man personally and he would make a more trustworthy Class Enemy President than the lying hypocrite snake-in-the-grass Trojan “UncleTom’s Cabin” Judas-Horse decoy Obama.

        • I left a reply and the program destroyed it. To take less time, let me say in briefest: Obama has a better chance of destroying Social Security and Medicare than Romney would have. Obama is more dangerous to my old age survival than Romney would be. If the vote is runaway Romney or Obama in Michigan I will vote third party. But if it looks like Romney and Obama are dead even with eachother, I will vote for Romney to do my part to destroy the evil Obama and save my Social Security from his Simpson-Bowles Catfood Conspiracy.

          The so-called “Democrats” would pretend to oppose Romney on destroying Social Security to privatise the record. If Obama gets re-elected, the so-called “Democrats” will openly co-conspire with Obama against my old-age future.

  3. I should add: “Revelation” is the wrong word. “Claim” is better. The source is a Regnery book. ‘Nuff said.

  4. Thank you RD for exposing again this shameful “Opportunist in Cheif”.
    How can we get rid of him?

    • you know, it shouldn’t take some nobody like me to point out what’s going on here. It should be fricking obvious.

      The secret to getting Obama and the party to bend is to tell them you will not contribute to their campaigns or vote for them. And then, mean it. This year, the race is going to be a squeaker. No better time than to extract concessions from him.

      • Beyond obvious. And yet what I’m seeing around the webz is, “Ooh, look at the crazzies. We must must must vote for B0. After the election, we can ask nicely to get our livers [or other internal organs] back.”

        What is WRONG with these people?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: